1951 Jeep CJ3A vs. 2012 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2012 Toyota Matrix is newer by 61 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1951 Jeep CJ3A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1951 Jeep CJ3A would be higher. At 2,199 cc (4 cylinders), 1951 Jeep CJ3A is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Toyota Matrix (132 HP) has 73 more horse power than 1951 Jeep CJ3A. (59 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Toyota Matrix should accelerate faster than 1951 Jeep CJ3A.
Because 1951 Jeep CJ3A is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2012 Toyota Matrix. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1951 Jeep CJ3A will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2012 Toyota Matrix (173 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 28 more torque (in Nm) than 1951 Jeep CJ3A. (145 Nm @ 3600 RPM). This means 2012 Toyota Matrix will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1951 Jeep CJ3A.
Compare all specifications:
| 1951 Jeep CJ3A | 2012 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Jeep | Toyota |
| Model | CJ3A | Matrix |
| Year Released | 1951 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2199 cc | 1800 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 59 HP | 132 HP |
| Torque | 145 Nm | 173 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 3130 mm | 4366 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1460 mm | 1765 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1630 mm | 1549 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2040 mm | 2601 mm |
